2016 Baseball Cards

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I bought a bunch of Topps Opening Day packs, and was happily surprised to see Matt Reynolds get a card. I can't think of too many times the Mets have had a guy get a card before ever appearing in a game. Maybe one of those cards with multiple players. But Matt gets a card to himself.

[seawolf17]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I bought a bunch of Topps Opening Day packs, and was happily surprised to see Matt Reynolds get a card. I can't think of too many times the Mets have had a guy get a card before ever appearing in a game. Maybe one of those cards with multiple players. But Matt gets a card to himself.

I love Opening Day for the mascot inserts.

[Zvon]

Ugh, I've been avoiding Opening Day because they are like the regular card but only add the lil O.D. logo. Do they still do that, same as Topps reg card? What a rip. And they'll keep doing it if we buy em. I am collecting Matt Reynolds though. I haven't gotten the Heritage Reynolds yet.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Zvon wrote: Ugh, I've been avoiding Opening Day because they are like the regular card but only add the lil O.D. logo. Do they still do that, same as Topps reg card? What a rip. And they'll keep doing it if we buy em. I am collecting Matt Reynolds though. I haven't gotten the Heritage Reynolds yet.

I like the Opening Day set. Don't mind the logo -- and appreciate that there is no gold foil!

Most of the subsets are weak -- I'd rather have a regular player card. But I love the mascots. Two teams so far -- Braves and Athletics -- have mascots with the very creative name of "Mascot."

I keep getting Reynolds in my packs. Let me know if you want one. I have to assume he'll be in the second series.

[Zvon]

I had to take a look at em. Ha. Niiiice.
It's not that I don't like the logo. Logos kool.
It's just that it's the only difference between O.D. cards and regular issue. They should use an alternate picture of the player.

[fimg=200:2yjovixa]http://beckett-www.s3.amazonaws.com/news/news-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-Topps-Opening-Day-Baseball-Mascots-Hank-the-Ballpark-Pup.jpg[/fimg:2yjovixa]

I'll buy a few packs of these this week and get back to you. Mrs. Met might make my must list.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

My beef is the Bowman sets. I subscribe -- if that's the right word -- to a store in Iowa that builds team sets and sends them out every couple of months. It seems like year in and year out, the Bowman sets are awful. And it seems like there are three or four variations of the sets -- a Chrome version, and so on.

They're not as bad as the new Donruss sets -- without the team logos on them. But those Bowman sets can do away.

[Zvon]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: My beef is the Bowman sets. I subscribe -- if that's the right word -- to a store in Iowa that builds team sets and sends them out every couple of months. It seems like year in and year out, the Bowman sets are awful. And it seems like there are three or four variations of the sets -- a Chrome version, and so on. They're not as bad as the new Donruss sets -- without the team logos on them. But those Bowman sets can do away.

I'm not a fan of all the special versions and all that. It makes the hobby into something that it shouldn't be. I still kinda dig it when I get one though.

And I cannot stomach cards that cannot use logos and whatnot. I'm simply not interested in them. I collected heavy in the past (& I'd put up with that kinda shit on Hostess cards or the like) but not at all during the days Topps took over the market and I don't understand how that was allowed to happen. Well, I do, money, but I don't think that should be allowed to happen if another company is willing to spend the same as Topps for the privilege of using the logos. I don't think that's right.

[batmagadanleadoff]

You don't need logos to make beautiful cards

[fimg=333:2888egtg]http://img.beckett.com/images/items/2073017/marketplace/86499652/front.jpg[/fimg:2888egtg][fimg=333:2888egtg]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FCfTGGFizZY/VY8jM2rHEnI/AAAAAAAAU-w/Bh9Vn3C2T6M/s1600/78topps304.jpg[/fimg:2888egtg]

Logos every year stinks of sameness.

[G-Fafif]

Topps Heritage, at least 1967 (the one I'd been waiting on since the concept was introduced), is weirdest when it's a player on a team that didn't exist in the year in question. ANGELS looks right, for example. BLUE JAYS doesn't.



A friend suggested perhaps teams that didn't exist in the years that are being replicated should have simply been left out until they were born. Probably wouldn't have gone over, but that's pretty damn authentic.

[Edgy MD]

That's problematic territory.

Retrofit cards challenge us to accept (and often delight in) hairstyles, positions, ethinicities (at least at the big league level), and more that didn't exist in the time of the publication of the original set. The whole enterprise is a big exercise of what-if. It forces the artists and the collectors to adapt, and that's most of the fun, isn't it?

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: You don't need logos to make beautiful cards [fimg=333]http://img.beckett.com/images/items/2073017/marketplace/86499652/front.jpg[/fimg][fimg=333]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FCfTGGFizZY/VY8jM2rHEnI/AAAAAAAAU-w/Bh9Vn3C2T6M/s1600/78topps304.jpg[/fimg] Logos every year stinks of sameness.

Both those cards have logos. They're on the uniforms. What Donruss has had to do in recent years is airbrush off all the logos on caps and jerseys because the company doesn't have a license from MLB. Card manufacturers must have two deals, one with the players union to run images of the players, and one with MLB to use logos. Topps has an exclusive deal with MLB at this point. Other companies can strike deals with the union. You get stuff like this:

[fimg=333]http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server1800/a9c49/products/125670/images/92546/2016d221__42553.1457565279.1280.1280.jpg[/fimg][fimg=333]

[seawolf17]

MGIM's right on the licensing. It's just Topps for "official" MLB products; the rest all have licenses with MLBPA.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: My beef is the Bowman sets. I subscribe -- if that's the right word -- to a store in Iowa that builds team sets and sends them out every couple of months. It seems like year in and year out, the Bowman sets are awful. And it seems like there are three or four variations of the sets -- a Chrome version, and so on.

Zvon wrote: I'm not a fan of all the special versions and all that. It makes the hobby into something that it shouldn't be. I still kinda dig it when I get one though.

That's just it. Collect what you want and just pretend the other stuff doesn't exist. I find that pulling the parallels and short prints I don't want give me ammunition for trades and/or eBay sales to get the things I do want, though.

G-Fafif wrote: A friend suggested perhaps teams that didn't exist in the years that are being replicated should have simply been left out until they were born. Probably wouldn't have gone over, but that's pretty damn authentic.

Edgy MD wrote: That's problematic territory. Retrofit cards challenge us to accept (and often delight in) hairstyles, positions, ethinicities (at least at the big league level), and more that didn't exist in the time of the publication of the original set. The whole enterprise is a big exercise of what-if. It forces the artists and the collectors to adapt, and that's most of the fun, isn't it?

Topps has largely done very well with the Heritage sets -- replicating errors, card numbering parallels, etc -- although for some reason, they can never quite get some of it exactly correct. It's nitpicky, but if you're going to go through the exercise of making the set, spend the extra time to make sure the fonts are right.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: You don't need logos to make beautiful cards [fimg=333]http://img.beckett.com/images/items/2073017/marketplace/86499652/front.jpg[/fimg][fimg=333]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FCfTGGFizZY/VY8jM2rHEnI/AAAAAAAAU-w/Bh9Vn3C2T6M/s1600/78topps304.jpg[/fimg] Logos every year stinks of sameness. Both those cards have logos. They're on the uniforms. What Donruss has had to do in recent years is airbrush off all the logos on caps and jerseys because the company doesn't have a license from MLB. Card manufacturers must have two deals, one with the players union to run images of the players, and one with MLB to use logos. Topps has an exclusive deal with MLB at this point. Other companies can strike deals with the union. You get stuff like this: [fimg=333]http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server1800/a9c49/products/125670/images/92546/2016d221__42553.1457565279.1280.1280.jpg[/fimg][fimg=333]

I see what you guys were talking about. I thought you were talking about logos as design elements on the cards.

Yeah, I agree with youse. I always hated that look. Doesn't everybody? And not just on cards, but on print ads or TV commercials where the sponsor was too cheap or didn't have the budget to pay for the use of the logos.

[batmagadanleadoff]

G-Fafif wrote: A friend suggested perhaps teams that didn't exist in the years that are being replicated should have simply been left out until they were born. Probably wouldn't have gone over, but that's pretty damn authentic.

You mean like this?

Before:

[fimg=555]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7483/26188061994_ab7efa4092_o.jpg[/fimg]


After:

[fimg=555]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7252/26188062034_522b277b98_o.jpg[/fimg]

[seawolf17]

That'd be instead:

Buster Posey SFG .318
Joey Votto CIN .314
Odubel Herrera PHI .297

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I love the retro sets and think Topps does a nice job with them. Actually, I should say I like the Heritage sets. The rest of them -- like Allen and Ginter -- I don't care for.

[G-Fafif]

Question regarding 1968- and 1969-style Heritage: will Jose Altuve, Dallas Keuchel and others on that team (assuming they're still on that team) be known as members of the ASTROS or simply HOUSTON?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Thinking ahead. I'd bet that Topps makes regular Astros cards with all the appropriate logos and trademarks. And then, some variations in the logoless Houston style.

[seawolf17]

No, I'd bet they go HOUSTON. They've really done a good job of staying true to the originals:

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nah. That's just a one-off. I think theyll go with the trademarks for the base set. I'll betcha a Blue Smoke fried bologna which I don't think they serve anymore. If not, a brisket.

[Zvon]

No, I'd bet they go HOUSTON. They've really done a good job of staying true to the originals:

_____________________Amazing.

[Zvon]

Question regarding 1968- and 1969-style Heritage: will Jose Altuve, Dallas Keuchel and others on that team (assuming they're still on that team) be known as members of the ASTROS or simply HOUSTON?

A logical & intelligent way to go. But we know Topps can be neither at times.

[Zvon]

Would I buy Topps cards if they looked like this?

[fimg=400:rsb2hajj]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DZ8TR6LhQR8/VykCdjwKLtI/AAAAAAAAnGk/tjCaw5Od2bcKschlGIWEtjn_e4eJc7mzACCo/s912/2016Leadersgeneric.png[/fimg:rsb2hajj]

No way.

Yea, the logo on the border is one thing, and it's not totally necessary. But the uni logos and team name and the interlocking NY--if you can't show that you can't properly represent my team, which has the best logo and name and NY thing known to man and the universe.

[Edgy MD]

Insignia is what we call the "NY thing."

It's confusing, because often enough the insignia and logo double for one another. I tend to think of the "logo" as the thing that used to be painted in the on-deck circle. But teams tend to have three logos:

1. circular logo/shoulder patch/on-deck circle
   
2. insignia
   
3. breastplate
   
   ... and variations on those three.

When they start using them interchangeably, I think it indicates a lack of faith in their trademarks. Making your breastplate double as your main logo is some weak stuff, Brewers! (Then again, the Mets incorporate their breastplate into the skyline logo.)

A lot of teams feature their mascot in the oft-baseball-shaped circular logo/shoulder patch/on-deck circle. If not, the mascot can become a fourth logo.

[Zvon]

I knew there was a word. Dagnabbitt!

[Zvon]

I've been running around asking everyone what year Trevor Story's rookie is and no one answers.
I guess that's because they have yet to release one.

When they do it will look like this (Bowman):
[fimg=300]http://www.topps.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-10-at-8.47.12-AM-730x1024.png[/fimg]

Stadium Club:

[fimg=400]http://www.topps.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-09-at-12.04.10-PM-1024x742.png[/fimg]

http://www.topps.com/blog/trevor-storys-rookie-cards-and-autographs-coming-soon-to-topps-and-bowman-cards/

[seawolf17]

Ooh, I hate that Stadium Club design. The photos are so good in that set, though.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I'm closing in on the Opening Day set, and I'm surprised at the player selection. I get that in a smaller set there will be fewer players, and that players who are traded or signed are more likely to appear in the second series. (Opening Day has a smattering of second series cards, but generally not guys who changed teams.)

But it's odd to see Matt Reynolds and Reuben Tejada in there -- both with a variation card, to boot -- and not Wright or Cespedes.

[seawolf17]

But it's odd to see Matt Reynolds and Reuben Tejada in there -- both with a variation card, to boot -- and not Wright or Cespedes.

I didn't even know there were variations in OD; looked them up, and all three Mets ones are interesting.

The Tejada is a broken-leg variation:


The Reynolds has him wearing #56, while the base has him wearing #55:


And the Syndergaard includes a bullpen catcher card debut:

[Zvon]

seawolf17 wrote: Ooh, I hate that Stadium Club design. The photos are so good in that set, though.

Maybe it looks better in your hands. But yea, looks like a great photo that someone stuck stuff on. I hope it's the scan that makes the name & logo look gray like that.


So Opening Day has a second series? This makes no sense to me. I thought it was a little set to celebrate the opening of the season, a one off. I think that's a bit much having more than one series of OD. I'm afraid they are watering it all down in a way, all the different types of cards. But, if we buy 'em, they will sell them. That was the big hurdle for the tNOW card. I don't want to support that type of thing in the hobby (I bet this also crossed your mind Seawolf). But when it comes to the Mets I go a little nutty sometimes and caught up in the glow from that HR I had to have that Mets card.

Now these cards pictured- I love em all! But I have to step back and say, wait a minute. Variations, parallels, cards w/a lil glow highlight that you can barely see (if you bother to look 4 it),...things are getting out of hand. At least at 2 to 3 bucks a pack.

And after all that it's going to be soooo hard not to get an OD blister next time in Target. I can only hope they have none in stock.